Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1385 (TS)

Singaraju Chandu v. State of Telangana

2025-11-04

J.SREENIVAS RAO

body2025
ORDER : J. Sreenivas Rao, J. This Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the petitioner/accused seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1786 of 2019 on the file of the XXI Metropolitan Magistrate Cyberabad at Medchal, for the offences punishable under Sections 506 and 507 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’). 2. When the matter was taken up for hearing on 25.10.2025, there was no representation on behalf of respondent No.2, either in physical mode or virtual mode. To give one more opportunity, the matter was posted to 28.10.2025. On 28.10.2025 also, there was no representation on behalf of respondent No.2, either in physical mode or virtual mode. To give one more final opportunity to respondent No.2, the matter was posted to 04.11.2025 under the caption ‘for orders’. In spite of the matter being listed under the caption ‘for orders’, today also there is no representation on behalf of respondent No.2, either in physical mode or virtual mode. Hence, this Court has no option except to proceed with the matter on merits. 3. Heard Mr. P.Vishnuvardhana Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 State. 4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 21.12.2018, the de-facto complainant lodged a complaint stating that her ex-husband i.e., the petitioner has been harassing her and her daughter, and her parents following their divorce on 03.09.2017, which took place in Australia. After the divorce, the petitioner continuously issued life threats to the complainant and her family, causing them severe distress. She further stated that she and her daughter came to India on 11.12.2018, but the petitioner continued to threaten them. On 13.12.2018, he allegedly warned that he would file a criminal complaint against them and threatened her family with dire consequences. Hence, the present complaint has been lodged. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not committed any offence. Even according to the allegations made in the complaint and the charge sheet, the petitioner neither harassed nor threatened respondent No.2, and the ingredients of Sections 506 and 507 of the IPC are not attracted. Hence, the present complaint has been lodged. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not committed any offence. Even according to the allegations made in the complaint and the charge sheet, the petitioner neither harassed nor threatened respondent No.2, and the ingredients of Sections 506 and 507 of the IPC are not attracted. He further submits that the petitioner and respondent No.2 obtained a decree of divorce on 03.09.2017 from the Australian Family Court (Parramatta Family Court), Sydney, Australia, vide Case No. PAC 2180 of 2018. In the application filed before the Australian Court, respondent No.2 herself specifically mentioned that the child lives alternately between the petitioner and respondent No.2. When respondent No.2 violated the terms and conditions of the decree of divorce and did not permit the petitioner to have custody of the child, the petitioner filed G.W.O.P. No.267 of 2019 under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned Additional Family Court, Hyderabad, in I.A. No.634 of 2019 in G.W.O.P. No.267 of 2019, the petitioner approached this Court by filing F.C.A. No.225 of 2019, wherein this Court granted interim stay and directed respondent No.2 not to remove the child from Hyderabad during the pendency of the said case. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has also approached this Court by filing W.P. No.26266 of 2019, seeking a writ of habeas corpus directing respondent Nos.1 to 4 therein to produce the minor child. While the above disputes were pending between the petitioner and respondent No.2, respondent No.2 lodged the present complaint with false allegations. He vehemently contends that, as on the date of the alleged offences, the petitioner was in Australia, and that respondent No.2, with an intention to harass the petitioner, falsely implicated him in the present case. Hence, the ingredients of Sections 506 and 507 of the Indian Penal Code are not made out, and the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner amounts to clear abuse of the process of law. 7. Per contra, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that respondent No.2 has made specific allegations against the petitioner, stating that he threatened her and her family members with dire consequences. However, the ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 506 and 507 of the IPC are not attracted against the petitioner. 7. Per contra, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that respondent No.2 has made specific allegations against the petitioner, stating that he threatened her and her family members with dire consequences. However, the ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 506 and 507 of the IPC are not attracted against the petitioner. The Investigating Officer, after conducting a detailed investigation, filed the final report. The grounds raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner involve disputed questions of fact, which are required to be adjudicated and decided by the trial Court after a full-fledged trial. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings on the basis of the aforesaid contentions. 8. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the petitioner and respondent No.2 are husband and wife, and matrimonial disputes arose between them. The parties obtained a decree of divorce from the Australian Family Court (Parramatta Family Court), Sydney, Australia, in Case No. PAC 2180 of 2018, dated 03.09.2017. The record further discloses that the petitioner filed G.W.O.P. No.267 of 2019 on the file of the learned Additional Family Court, Hyderabad. In the said O.P., the petitioner filed an application vide I.A. No.634 of 2019 seeking custody of the minor child, which was dismissed on 23.10.2019. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed F.C.A. No.225 of 2019 before this Court and also filed W.P. No.26266 of 2019 seeking a direction to respondent Nos.1 to 4 therein to produce the minor child before this Court. This Court, by a common judgment dated 23.06.2023, dismissed the above cases, directing the trial Court to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible, and further directed both parties to cooperate with the Court for early disposal of the matter. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, G.W.O.P. No.267 of 2019 is still pending before the trial Court. 9. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the issue relating to the entitlement of custody of the child between the parties has to be adjudicated by the trial Court in the pending G.W.O.P. No.267 of 2019. As stated supra, there are no specific allegations leveled against the petitioner so as to attract the ingredients of Sections 506 and 507 of the IPC. 10. As stated supra, there are no specific allegations leveled against the petitioner so as to attract the ingredients of Sections 506 and 507 of the IPC. 10. It is pertinent to mention that the law governing the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is well settled by the decision in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal , 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court illustratively catalogued categories of cases warranting quashment, such as when the allegations taken at face value do not constitute an offence, are absurd or inherently improbable, are actuated by mala fides, or where continuance of proceedings would amount to abuse of process, while cautioning that such power must be sparingly invoked to secure the ends of justice. 11. For the foregoing reasons and the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case as well as the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bhajan Lal’s case (supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to invoke the provisions of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. 12. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed. The proceedings against the petitioner/accused in C.C.No.1786 of 2019 on the file of the XXI Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Medchal, are hereby quashed. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.